Five Ways to Fix America’s Dismal Voter Turnout Problem

Just like the Tom Hanks line from the movie Apollo 13: “America,
we have a problem.”

Some background: Voter turnout in the U.S.
during the 2014 midterm election hit the lowest
point since the 1940s.

Plus, the number of Americans heading to the polls each
election has been declining for the last fifty years, but added to that, sadly,
are the states and lawmakers who have been
pushingefforts to keep even more people away from the polls (those
nasty voter ID laws).

People do not vote for various
reasons, (I think most are weak and limp). Some of the reasons are easier
to solve than others.

14
percent of nonvoting respondents were unable to participate because of an
illness or disability,

8.6
percent were out of town,

12.7
percent did not like the candidates or campaign issues, and

19
percent were just too busy.

Some people cannot take time off from work on those Tuesdays
in November to vote, and that has led some lawmakers including Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-VT) to call for making Election Day a federal holiday (which I
totally support – possibly two days).

Still other voters may not feel engaged in politics or
informed enough to vote.

Nearly 6 mission (actually 5.85
million) are prohibited from voting due to a felony conviction on
their records.

Then add the harsh voter ID laws, carefully crafted to make
sure that certain classes of voters (those who mostly vote for DEMS) never vote
…. It’s a mathematical scheme…. Keep our base in tow and stymie theirs – ergo:
we win.

Welcome to America
– now on the backside of the down slope to nowhere. Shame on those who advocate
for more hash and strict voting laws, and shame on us for letting them get away
with it.

For almost 40 years now, up to 300 of the largest US
corporations — including Koch Industries, Verizon, Bank of America, and Exxon
*to name few biggies — have used ALEC to push model legislation, which is
beneficial to their corporate interests, into law in the states.

ALEC boasts that a third of all state legislators in the U.S.
are members, introducing around 1,000 ALEC bills every year. By using ALEC to
pursue their agenda, they are able to hide their fingerprints, avoid lobbying
disclosure, and evade the kind of increased scrutiny that comes when citizens
know it’s actually corporations that drafted some of their most important laws.

Recent ALEC bills have rolled back voting rights, reduced
environmental protections, and stripped away collective bargaining rights for
workers around the country just to name some.

CPAC represents the largest gathering of right-wing
conservatives from around the country bent on finding ways to undermine public
education and limit opportunity for students.

Without a doubt, discussions about siphoning away taxpayer
dollars from public education and funneling them into private and religious
schools and expanding privately-run charter schools that, despite getting
public funding, are not accountable or transparent to the communities they are
supposed to serve are red meat for that crowd.

A lot of the speaker’s ideas and prepared talking points come
from the ALECplaybook,
which includes restricting the ability of educators to advocate for their
students and dismantling public education.

Then there is anti-Union types (Scott Walker, in charge)
etc. In short just about anything good is fair game for them … the more red
meat the better: anti-this, that, druthers.

Everything Up to This Point Got Us to this Point: Mr. Obama has made good on his promise - now the ball is in the GOP's corner - can they muster the voters to over ride (2/3 of each house required to over ride, thus that is unlikely).

For the record: This is only the third veto from Mr. Obama.

Related story here - from the people who would have been impacted in the worst possible ways.Updated: Will the clash over Keystone ever end? By Kaye Foley (Yahoo news):

On February 11, the Republican-led House
of Representatives passed the 11th bill approving the long-delayed Keystone XL
pipeline after it also passed the Senate. It is now headed to President Obama’s
desk for his signature, but he has threatened a veto.

It’s the latest chapter in this six-year
saga.

In 2008, the Canadian energy company
TransCanada submitted plans for the pipeline to the U.S. State Department.

The proposed 1,179-mile Keystone XL
pipeline would go from the oil sands in Alberta,
Canada, to Steele
City, Neb. It’s the final piece
of a 3,800-mile network that would bring 830,000 barrels of oil a day to U.S.
Gulf Coast refineries.

There are already miles and miles of pipelines
beneath U.S. soil. But Keystone has ignited a debate that has become a
focal point in Washington. Environmentalists say it’s a threat to the environment. The process of
extracting oil from the oil sands in Alberta
releases more greenhouse gases than traditional oil drilling.

Meanwhile, supporters claim it will improve U.S.
energy security while creating thousands of jobs. Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) has urged President Obama to sign, saying, “The Keystone jobs
bill is just common sense.”

The White House opposes the bill
because it circumvents the administration’s review of whether or not Keystone
XL is in the national interest. President Obama wants to wait for the final
recommendation from the State Department. But even if the president vetoes, it’s
not the end of this story. Congress could try to override the veto by a
two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, although it currently lacks the votes.

GOP supporters may also look to attach Keystone as a rider to any must-pass
legislation. (call that another GOP “poison pill” stunt – i.e., pass the bill
we want, or else – so, is that anyway to run a country). Stay
tuned – or as Yogi Berra would say:

This update deals with rail transport of oil and latest disaster (story here) in West Virginia. I also provide more background on other rail disaster below.The logic behind this update is simple: The GOP says no pipeline, okay, we'll transport the tar sands crude via rail ... one way or the other we will get the oil from Canada to Texas. Of course their effort is backed by you know who (Hint: Two brothers named Koch - more on that below, too). They want this project no matter the cost, damage, or future outlook for anything except their bottom line.

The tempo of oil-train accidents has increased along with the sharp rise in tanker shipments, as has the amount of oil discharged. Soon after the Casselton spill, an investigative news report by the McClatchy news agency concluded, based on federal data, that last year more oil spilled in the U.S. from rail tank cars than in all the nearly 40 previous years on record combined.

But later that month, on Feb. 26, a representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, Robert L. Sumwalt, told a congressional hearing that incidents such as the Casselton explosion have become an “increasingly commonplace story.” He said continued use of tanker cars built to meet current federal standards poses “an unacceptable public risk.” Meanwhile, the Association of American Railroads is pressing the federal government to impose “more rigorous standards for tank cars carrying flammable liquids, including asking for retrofitting tank cars to meet the higher standards or phasing those that cannot be made safer.”

UPDATE (February 9,
2015): This update of the status of this pipeline comes from a
very

thought-providing
article here (in the LA Times). This gives us the impression of being
between a rock and a hard spot, or lodged between the Koch brothers and the
Saudis. I am not entirely sure which is worse: Sipping Koch or gulping Saudi oil???

Credit: David Horsey / Los Angeles Times

(click for larger view)

Hydraulic
fracturing, the controversial and ecologically dubious extraction process more
commonly known as “fracking,” has opened up vast new reserves of oil in Alberta, North Dakota and other areas

The production potential is so great that the United
States, rather than being an oil importer
reliant on suppliers in the troubled regions of the Middle East,
could soon be a major exporter.

The energy independence for which a generation of
politicians have clamored is at hand.

Except for one thing. Fracking is not cheap and the Saudis know it.

Oil prices need to be high to justify drilling into tar
sands and shale rock to bring up the hard-to-get-at crude. One good side
benefit of high-cost fossil fuels is that renewable energy development has
finally become economically feasible. Even as the environment is being
compromised by fracking for dirty oil, environmentally friendly wind and solar
power businesses have begun to prosper. But, with gasoline prices plummeting to
half what they were two years ago, alternative-energy companies are taking a
big hit.

Even more dramatic is the effect on the North American oil
boom. As profits slump, drilling slows and jobs go away. Even the congressional
debate over the Keystone XL pipeline could become moot.

There is no reason to build an expensive pipeline from Canada
to the GulfCoast
if cheap gas makes the cost of pumping from the tar sands a bad business
deal.

[I agree with the article in this regard] … this is just what the Saudis want.
Against their own short-term interests, they and their OPEC partners have kept
production high and oil abundant.

Original Post(January 29, 2015): This senate vote forces President to veto the pipeline ... the GOP got what they wanted a showdown and utter disregard for clean water, healthy land and air and for what? Big, big payoff for gas, oil, energy industry and the biggest tar sands land holder: Refreshing Koch-a-Kola.

This story is quite detailed with this introduction: Many
news outlets are uncritically touting the State Department's conclusion that
building the Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly worsen climate change
without noting that this determination was based on an expectation of high oil
prices. Some media outlets, however, have reported the significance of the
recent plunge in oil prices, such as the Associated Press, which
noted that “…low oil prices could make the pipeline more important to the
development of new oil sands projects in Canada than anticipated by the State
Department ... and therefore is more likely to increase emissions of
carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming.” Continue reading
at the above link.

My overall review starts from here (long, but I think
important): Two points from TransCanada here and here.

Some GOPers say: “The positives far outweigh the
negatives.” I retort: What negatives? Should we not always strive to reduce or
eliminate negatives (and strive for the benefits and positives)?

Building this pipeline, with a record of over several dozen
spills (12 in one year alone) should be reason to pause and not rush into this:
it is not a crapshoot … throw the dice and scream 7 come 11 ain’t the answer.
Once a spill occurs, all bets are off because this type of crude (tar
sands) is like a rock laden with heavy syrup: it sinks to the bottom of the
lake or river, etc. It does not float on the top of the water where is can be
easily skimmed off. Why take a chance on any prospective, and I add, massive
spill like imagine across or near the Ogallala Aquifer.

About 27 percent of the irrigated
land in the United States overlies the aquifer, which yields about 30 percent of
the ground water used for irrigation in the United States. Since 1950,
agricultural irrigation has reduced the saturated volume of the aquifer by an
estimated 9%. Depletion is accelerating, with 2% lost between 2001 and 2009
alone. Certain aquifer zones are now empty;
these areas will take over 6,000 years to replenish naturally through
rainfall.

The aquifer system supplies
drinking water to 82 percent of the 2.3 million people (1990 census) who live
within the boundaries of the High Plains study area. Myth: Keystone XL
Will Create Tens of Thousands of Jobs:

Any big construction project requires workers to build it.
How many? The U.S. State Department’s analysis says 3,900 would be employed
directly if the job is done in one year, or 1,950 per year if work is spread
over two. TransCanada Corp. puts the number higher, saying the project would
support 9,000 construction jobs directly.

There would be additional, “indirect” work for companies
supplying goods and services, including concrete, fuel, surveying, welding
materials and earth-moving equipment required for the project, and “induced”
jobs resulting from money spent by workers and suppliers, such as ranchers
providing beef for restaurants and construction camps.

Counting up everything, the State Department estimates
a total of 42,100 jobscould be created.Trans Canada has
accepted the 42,100 figure for total employment. Whatever the number, these jobs are
temporary, lasting only for the year or two that it would take to complete the
project. The number of permanent jobs is much lower. “The proposed Project
would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations,” according to the State
Department analysis.

That was before President
Obama initially rejected the original Canada-to-Texas
project pending changes in the route. Since then, TransCanada has completed a
485-mile segment of the original project — running from Cushing,
OK to refineries in Texas
— which did not require presidential approval because it did not cross an
international border. Now named the “Gulf Coast Pipeline Project,”
construction began in August 2012 and was completed this year. It went into operation
on Jan. 22.

The current Keystone XL project includes 875 miles within
the U.S.And, as noted, even TransCanada says it
would create about 42,000 temporary jobs, not 120,000.

Pipelines can be hazardous. An average of 97,376
barrels (4.1 million gallons) of petroleum and other “hazardous liquids”
have been spilled each year in pipeline incidents over the last decade,
according to the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. These incidents have claimed an average of two
lives per year, and resulted in more than $263 million in annual reported
property damage as well.

Those figures include the most
expensive onshore oil pipeline spill in U.S. history, caused when 30-inch
pipe operated by Enbridge ruptured on July
26, 2010, near Marshall, Mich.
That dumped more than 1 million gallons of Canadian diluted bitumen — the same
material that would be carried in the proposed 36-inch Keystone pipeline — into
the KalamazooRiver.
Enbridge is still
struggling to complete the cleanup, having failed to meet a Dec. 31
Environmental Protection Agency deadline for dredging remaining oil residue
that settled on the bottom of the river.

A spill from the Keystone could potentially have similar
effects. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, in its final
evaluation report on the project, found that the properties of the diluted
forms of bitumen that would flow through the state in the Keystone pipeline “are
similar in many respects to other heavy sour crude oils.” For what it’s
worth, TransCanada says it plans to make the Keystone “the
safest pipeline ever constructed in the U.S.,” adding more remote shut-off
valves and inspections and burying the pipe more deeply than with other
pipelines.

And that calamity is by no means an isolated incident.

This presentation is outstanding in that is shows graphically the Koch reach into so many areas or our lives ... the pipeline segment is at about the 38:00-minute mark. It shows the evidence re: this project - worth your time to watch:

Based on relative
safety records to date, the State
Department estimated that an average of six deaths per year would result if
the Keystone isn’t built and the same amount of oil is shipped by rail instead.
More than twice as much oil is likely to be spilled as well, State estimated.

(1) Tar sands are “game over” for the climate.
Canada’s tar sands, which Keystone XL would carry, could contain double the
carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in history — and green lighting the pipeline
that would carry them to the global market would be disastrous for climate
change.

(2)
The supposed benefits of the tar sands pipeline have been over hyped. While
supporters once said that the pipeline would bring gas prices down, experts
agree that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could even increase domestic gas
prices — and have little chance of lowering them. Jobs numbers, too, have been
wildly inflated; TransCanada gave U.S. officials a job number
that was 67 times higher than the number they used in Canada. While every U.S. job is important, the
estimates on this project have ranged from 50 permanent jobs, to 2,500
temporary jobs, to TransCanada’s claim of 20,000 jobs. Even unions agree that
clean energy jobs outweigh this potential for temporary dirty oil jobs.

(3) The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline puts our
country’s natural resources at risk. The pipeline route passes through Nebraska’s
Ogallala Aquifer (as discussed above), which is the country’s largest source of freshwater as
addressed above. Even a single spill could have disastrous consequences for
generations to come — and a University
of Nebraska at Lincoln
analysis of the pipeline finds that it could have 91 major spills in 50 years.

(4) On Tuesday, Nov. 6, Americans voted against dirty
energy and against Big Oil. Big Oil bet big on the election — and lost
big. Big Oil-backed groups spent over $270 million on television ads in the
last two months of the cycle alone, and have little to show for it. A recent
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll found that 64 percent of voters say they
have a favorable impression of renewable energy. In a Zogby poll released
today, only 12 percent of respondents said that the Keystone XL tar sands
pipeline was a “priority.” Meanwhile, 48 percent identified renewable energy as
a priority.

(5) The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline compromises our
energy security. The tar sands oil that will pass through the pipeline is
intended for the international market, making Keystone XL a pipeline that goes
through the U.S.
— not to the U.S.
Furthermore, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline continues to feed our dangerous
addiction to oil that compromises national security and places American troops
in harm’s way.

Key Point:Canada’s
pro-industry energy regulator — the National Energy Board — just announced a
sweeping audit of TransCanada’s Canadian operations. This is the latest in a
long series of accidents, shutdowns and pipeline safety infractions that have
hounded the Canadian pipeline operator TransCanada. Earlier this month,
TransCanada was forced to shut its leak prone Keystone I tar sands pipeline
down for four days after finding an “anomaly” — a technical term for cracks,
corrosion or other defects in a pipeline which may lead to a rupture. These
incidents are not unique; TransCanada has a sordid
history as a pipeline operator.

Note:Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once said that “TransCanada could pursue an
alternative route through Canada
to the West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China
and other Asian markets.” However, Canadian Native group opponents call the West
Coast option far fetched. They note that Canadian regulators have announced
a one-year delay for a similar project that would carry tar sands oil to British
Columbia (Canada's
west coast as Harper referred to). But, that group has constitutionally protected
treaty rights and unsettled land claims that could allow them to block or
significantly delay both pipelines.

Finally,Media
Matters here takes on and debunks five of the prevailing media
myths about Keystone XL.

Monday, February 23, 2015

It is wrong to totally ascertain or suggest that all Republicans
are easily-misled simpletons. They are not. Yet the GOP consistently panders to
their easily-misled simpletons (we call it the GOP base) and with the most
egregiously dishonest ideas in American politics carefully crafted and designed
and delivered by a massive and effective propaganda machine.

Otherwise, they tend to fall for the propaganda it just like the guy pictured above. Taken from these two sources hereand here.

Here is list of the TOP 10:

10. Obama Doubled the Deficit.

9. Man-made Climate Change is a Hoax.
8. Cold Weather Disproves Climate Change.
7. Tax Cuts Do More To Stimulate the Economy Than Food Stamps and
Unemployment Benefits.
6. Cars Kill a Lot of People and No One Wants to
Ban Them Like Guns.
5. The Affordable Care Act Covers Abortion-Inducing Emergency
Contraception.
4. Obama-phones (and other "free stuff for DEM votes").
3. It’s Safer to Have a Gun in Your House, or a Concealed Weapon on Your
Person.
2. Exhaling Releases “Dangerous” CO 2.
1. Voter Fraud is a Serious Issue That Requires Strict New Voter ID Laws.

The biggest ones related to the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care):

1. They said it had
death panels (it does not).
2. They said it was a government
takeover and the insurance industry is making record profits (half right).
3. They said it covered illegals (it
does not).
4. They said it was a job killer (it is
not).

Then this from these four:

1. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on the
Shameless Hannity radio show: “I can’t help but believe, just based on the
way we’ve got all these nebulous excuses why not to have a travel ban, this
president, I guarantee you, we’re going to find out, he has cut a deal with
African leaders. They’re going to bring people in.”
2. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R-TX):ISIS
Is Coming Over The Border Due To Discovered Prayer Rugs. Dewhurst claimed
that ISIS prayer rugs were recently found at the border,
signaling a possible invasion. The prayer rugs turned out to be Adidas jerseys.
3. Joni Ernset (R-IA) as candidate and
now U.S. Senator. She warned that she carries her pistol just in case the
government tries to confiscate it and thus we all need to carry a gun.
4. Rep. Don Young, (R-AK) once said that
social programs are leading to suicide due to corresponding decline in support
from family and friends. He later apologized.

Just for the record. Thanks for stopping by and enjoy your hot shower.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)
(And, several other beady-eyed key state officials)

This update is based on the GOP's latest and more aggressive moves on voting rights — it was snagged from hereas an introduction to my historical notes that follow - enjoy.

Lately, the Republican war on voting has re-emerged with a
vengeance.

From Georgia
to Nevada, the GOP is taking
advantage of gains made in last fall’s midterms to move forward with
restrictive laws — defying some predictions that the party might back off its
campaign to make voting harder. Meanwhile, a group of Republican election
officials has found a creative new way to stoke fears over illegal voting.

Further, a roundup by the BrennanCenter
for Justice at NYU – a leader on this subject, found that at least 40
restrictive voting bills have been introduced in state legislatures just since
the start of the year. But more revealing, recent weeks have seen advances for
some of the most far-reaching of those bills.

Continue the story at the link above.

Now history and the facts about immigrants voting in the
United States ...
that is if facts matter and they should.

The right of foreigners to vote in the United
States has historically been a contentious
issue. A foreigner,
in this context, is a person who is not citizen of the United
States. Over 40 states or territories, including
colonies before the Declaration of Independence,
allowed at one time admitted aliens voting rights for some or all
elections. (Note: I am sure this surprises many, it did me, too during my research)!!

In 1874, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that “citizenship has
not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right
of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri,
persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens
of the United States,
may under certain circumstances vote.”

By 1900, nearly one-half of the states and territories had
some experience with voting by aliens, and for some the experience lasted more
than half a century. However, at the turn of the twentieth century, anti-immigration
feeling ran very high.

In 1901,Alabama
stopped allowing aliens to vote by way of a constitutional change.

In 1902,Colorado
followed suit.

In 1908, so did Wisconsin.

In 1914,Oregon
stopped aliens from registering and voting.

In 1918,Kansas,
Nebraska, and South
Dakota all changed their constitutions to purge alien
suffrage.

In 1921,Indiana
and Texas joined that trend.

In 1924,Mississippi
jointed the same trend.

In 1926, finally, the last state, Arkansas, joined that same trend.

By 1931, political scientist Leon Aylsworth noted: “For the
first time in over a hundred years, a national election was held in 1928 in which no alien in any state
had the right to cast a vote for a candidate for any office — national, state,
or local.”

Since then, only U.S.
citizens have the right to vote in federal elections. It is a Federal crime for
a non-citizen to vote in a federal election or to register to vote in one.

Yet, the GOP persists that 2016 will be the very worst ever since
Mr. Obama wants immigration reform and thus voting rights for immigrants.

Fear certainly sells. Let's face it, the GOP all across the land have become experts on how to peddle fear, and that is awful for the country.

Original post and one update now follow from here: Husted,Ohio’s
top elections official, says he’s worried that President Obama’s executive
order on immigration will make it easier for non-citizens to vote. But the
numbers don’t bear out his concern. He wrote in a letter
to the president, just released by his office, that warned the president’s Executive
Order on undocumented (illegal) immigrants will allow them to obtain a driver’s
license and social security number, thus opening the door to illegal voting.

Specifically Husted wrote: “By enabling millions of
non-citizens to access valid forms of the types of identification required to
register to vote, the recent executive actions have increased the risk that
non-citizens may illegally register to vote and vote in our elections. The
debate over voter fraud and voter access already breeds significant hyperbole
from across the political spectrum. Your recent executive actions will invite
even more, and have very real and lasting implications for the integrity of our
elections.”

The hype
and hysteria generated by the GOP all across la-la land (playing to their voting base mostly) is worrisome and not letting up despite some states have reversed the harsh laws. The GOP seems to see a bogeyman every place
they look – you know, like standing right next an ISIS
terrorist who sneaked into the U.S. from Mexico among all those young kids a few months ago and is hiding in plain sight.

This GOP’s actions on this issue are shameful, yet they
remain shameless.

That story from Ohio is here – enjoy and please, track this issue closely … it is
paramount to preserving our very fabric: the right to vote and choose the kind
of government and country we want and not what the hand-wringing GOP tells us
we need.

Try and be honest, this is how many Americans have now come to see what the GOP stands for. Hard to deny, isn't it?

Original Post Starts from Here:Plea to the GOP and their RED State Pol Pals:Stop Your Assault on Voting Rights. There is compelling evidence that your voter ID laws are total and utter büllshït. The facts are against you - see below. That is if you have the nerve to examine the data - call it "Fake Voter ID Fraud Denying." An excellent article that is an outstanding report that offers a detailed analysis from
Vox.com.

First, ask yourself these six questions: They kind of lead
the way - linked
here - check them out and continue below. The main story: This latest should grab your attention
with this in mind: Suppose it were you under scrutiny like so many valid,
duly-registered, honest voters? Would you be upset?

LoyolaUniversity
law professor Justin Levitt tried to quantify the epidemic of voter
ID fraud that's forcing so many states to pass restrictive voter ID laws. He
looked for not only cases where someone was convicted, but tracked "any
specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone
else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix." Out of roughly a billion votes cast, he found 31 credible
cases of voter ID fraud. And that is, he thinks, an overestimate. At the same
time, thousands of people really are being turned away from polling places
because they don't have the right ID. So voter ID laws fix a fake problem by
creating a very real one. Which isn't to say voter fraud isn't real. In an August
interview on
MSNBC, Professor Levitt explained why the voter ID laws don't do anything
to address the main kinds of voter fraud - see video clip at the above link or
click here - pretty dramatic.This update: It follows that if the GOP were to honest and admit their real aim and real goal, that maybe we could actually work for all eligible, loyal, honest, bona fide, registered American voters who want to exercise their Constitutional right to vote and not infringed by anything. This chart I believe actually shows part of the GOP plan and the numbers from the Brennan Center supports the people not the GOP tactics.

To me, and I presume to millions of other Americans who take our
voting rights seriously, this "voter ID movement" is a fake raw
useless effort to stop or prevent a problem that does not and has not existed
except in the minds of those who are making our voting rights more difficult
and in far too many cases, unnecessary. Follow the data and decide for yourself
- it's compelling and all for the wrong reasons.

Scores of data is here from the Brennan
Center for Justice at NYU. I have a lot a links on this subject
scattered throughout this Blog. Check them out. This is the most-pressing and compelling in the country that defines who we are ... without unhampered voting rights we are who we say we are, with the GOP's ploys, well, that is in serious danger and threatens our very existence as a free people and that is our right to vote and choose the kind of government we want - not what the pols think they know what we need.

Thanks
for stopping and pitch in and do whatever you can to help stop this fake issue.

Monday, February 16, 2015

This story shows
us the latest in a string of GOP ploys and threats to shutdown government. This
time it's the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ... Does the GOP actually
comprehend two words here: Homeland and Security.

All the time in canned floor speeches GOPers profess to be
loyal patriots who stand for the maximum national security and yet they display
yet again, this new "shut 'er down" mentality and that is a bit
disconcerting to say the least.

House Speaker John Boehner said he is preparing for a
potential DHS later this month. He already knows where to point fingers over
the stalemate in Congress: straight to Senate democrats..

He said to Chris Wallace where else except on FOX, “Well,
then, Senate Democrats should be to blame. Very simply.” Further asked whether he is prepared to see
those operations shutter, he was unequivocal. “Certainly. The House
has acted. We’ve done our job.”

But, that is not exactly true. Let’s be clear here shall we?

Funding for DHS, a vital agency, is being tied to the heart
of the battle about President Obama’s executive actions on immigration that he
announced just last November. That is the unilateral measures that would
provide deportation relief and temporary work permits to as many as 5 million
undocumented immigrants who currently live in the United
States. The first phase of enrollment opens
up Wednesday. The GOP says it is “amnesty” – however, it clearly is not.

The new Republican-controlled Congress sought to bring down
the measures through a series of poison pill amendments tacked onto a DHS
spending bill that would effectively block the these latest executive actions. Legislation
passed the House last month, only to run up against procedural hurdles in the
Senate with a Democratic filibuster.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY)
stated it best: When Speaker Boehner
tied immigration to DHS funding he knew exactly what he was doing; saying
unless I get my way, I’m going to shut down a large part of the government. o
now blame Democrats when members of his own party, conservative leaders and
others have all asked him to back off this game of chicken is disingenuous at
best.”

Even members of Boehner’s own party say it’s a bad idea,
like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on Meet the Press: “The American people
didn’t give us the majority to have a fight between House and Senate
Republicans. They want things done. We cannot cut funding for the Department of
Homeland Security. We need to sit down and work this thing out.”

Oddly enough I have said in the past: “The DEMS can’t
govern, and the GOPERS won’t.”

No wonder only 36% of the electorate gave the GOP all this
new power ... funny, how they managed that. Oh, yeah voter ID laws are enabling
the GOP to gain more power. Seems we’ve heard that phrase before – remember
this from the PA GOP House in 2012?

Friday, February 13, 2015

Who owns religion? Who has a corner on their brand religion
and no others? Who is say which religion is right or wrong and all-inclusive?
Indeed, who?

Some
background first from here: “... [just] the mention of any religion that
does not adhere to American Neo-Christianity’s hate-filled tenets is enough to
drive the faithful into a violent rage.”

For example, in Arkansas,
a local Unitarian Universalist church reached
out to the community in a letter alerting the residents that their
“church” was all inclusive and welcomed all people regardless of race,
religion, or sexual preference; like Jesus Christ preached. The letter incited
typically religious right intolerance and hatred that drove some vile human
being to shoot out the church’s windows and leave a hate-filled, racist,
homophobic, and Islamophobic rant threatening the church’s leader.

The
main article comes from here, in part: Abu Bake al-Baghdadi, the
leader of ISIS/ISIL, recently threw down the gauntlet at the United States,
intending to malign America
as what he called the “defender of the cross.” He promised “soon enough . . .
direct confrontation.”

Not long after, President Obama took him up on it. ISIS/ISIL
savagery has been on full display in Iraq
and around the globe via the internet. Mr. Obama’s bold, if initially limited,
intervention in behalf of Yazidi refugees and other vulnerable civilians at MountSinjarmarks only a first stage of what will surely be a long struggle.
How that struggle is defined will be crucially important going forward.

Baghdadi’s invoking of the cross, of course, echoes the
crusader references that have been a staple of contemporary Jihadist polemics,
as if this contest has its roots in the 11th century. In Arabic, the word
crusade is rendered as “war of the cross,” with deadly implications that the United
States came slowly to appreciate after
George W. Bush off handedly defined his response to 9/11 as “this crusade, this
war on terrorism."

At the time, and with little or no idea of what it was getting
into, Washington found itself in
a full-blown religious war — attempting to out-zealot the zealots. The
misbegotten invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan
both served as massive recruiting festivals for self-anointed defenders of a
brutal god. But religion is not, and never was, the issue here.

Finally, I would add: We Americans worship and honor the
First Amendment to the Constitution which clearly states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.”

That simply means we believe that we or anyone can worship the way we/they want or choose, and to do so freely, or not to worship anything at all, also freely.

We also are supposed to respect others and their right to worship or not. Careful, though about trying to remind a zealot about that. You may not like the answers.

The story that got my attention comes from DETROIT – In his first major speech of
the 2016 cycle, Republican John Ellis (Jeb) Bush said he would tackle income inequality,
poverty and education as part of a broad campaign to restore Americans’ “right
to rise.” (Note the use of the word "right" implies
GOP-rightwing).... He sounded better than some DEMS I know.

Bush further said: “The opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time. More
Americans are stuck at their income levels than ever before. It’s very hard for
people to go from the bottom rungs of the economy to the top or even the
middle. This should alarm you. It has alarmed me.”

Whoa, he sure got that part right: We all are a bit alarmed!!! And, quite
frankly we don't need any more bushes around to decorate the White House. So, just
mosey along. Thanks, but no thanks.

King v. Burwell:
Courting Chaos

(I add: maybe/maybe not)

Sub-heading: "Conservatives Continue to Use the Court to Dismantle the
Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obama-care)"

Amicus briefs were due for King v. Burwell¸ the Supreme Court case which threatens to cause a
meltdown in the health care system, if the high court were to rule against the
law that offers tax credits for health insurance in “insurance marketplaces”
now operating in approximately three dozen states that would be eliminated.

Simply put, they have no ground to stand on in making their
argument — i.e., the text of the law is simply
at odds(Think Progress) with the plaintiffs’ view of what the law should say and do. Their
case is so shaky, in fact, that many prominent conservatives who are fighting
against the law have previously undercut their own arguments, for example:

• The Heritage
Foundation (pretty darn rightwing) has supported
the challengers in King v. Burwell, despite the fact that they wrote an
entire white paper on the basis that subsidies would be available to any
enrollee. According to that paper, in part, they advocated: “… whoever
controls the AHB exchange,” tax credits will be available.

• Recently, the
challengers in this case also turned to former Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to
substantiate their case because during debates on the law when he was in
office, he insisted that states should take the lead on establishing exchanges.
Now he sets
the record straight saying: “I always believed that tax credits should be
available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange, and the final
law also reflects that belief as well.”

What rests on the outcome of this case is much, much more
than a political victory for the GOP-Conservatives, who have hated the law
since it was signed into effect, March
23, 2010. Stripping the premium
tax credits from all eligible individuals enrolled in a Federal marketplace
would have dire consequences. Those opposed want the States to say no exchange
and thus no plan or coverage – “Back to the Past” as it were (sounds like a
B-movie title).

Four critical points of what would happen if the USSC
rules against the ACA in this case:

The
non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 8
million people would lose health coverage (also much more in their
analysis).

It would
leave consumers in those States with a more unstable market and far higher
costs than if the ACA had not been enacted.”

Public
health experts estimate that 9,800
preventable deaths will occur each year if the Supreme Court rules
against the Affordable Care Act.

THE BOTTOM LINE:King v. Burwell is an ideologically-charged
case whose real-world implications are much more serious than political gain.
Many conservatives arguing against the law have undercut their argument in the
past, showing the weakness of their own case.

GOP-Conservatives should stop playing politics with the
livelihood of the American people. The well-being and financial stability of
millions of Americans is much more important that partisan politics.

But try telling that to any rigid, brain dead whoever – all they care about are political points and power is their
only aim. Yet, they have the unmitigated gall to stand in Congress and profess: “I/we support the American
people” (we hear it in practically in every speech and sound byte). So, if gutting this law,
which is working fine now by all accounts, is standing for the American people,
many who now have affordable health care for the first times in their lives,
then does it mean to "stand against the public and try to repeal health care that is finally working?”

As Rick Perry
(R-TX) might say: “Oops.”

All in all, we must remember this aside from the hype and flair and nonsense all over FOX and la-la land Talk Radio – this is all that really must stay in focus:

THE OVERRIDING
PURPOSE OF THE ACA WAS TO ENACT NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM BY ENSURING THE
AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Original Post Follows this Update (January 27, 2015):I should have known that the initial news yesterday was not definitive. What follows is a major update from the Department of the Army. It offers a more definitive and clearer picture on the subject of options and possible charges that SGT. Bergdahl faces over the next few weeks. A few highlights:

WASHINGTON(AP) — Army and Pentagon officials said Tuesday there has been no
decision on what, if any, criminal charges will be filed against SGT. Bowe
Bergdahl, the soldier who left his post in Afghanistan and was held by the
Taliban for five years before being released in a prisoner exchange.

Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort
Bragg, NC, has a broad range of
legal options, including various degrees of desertion charges. A major
consideration is whether military officials will be able to prove that Bergdahl
had no intention of ever returning to his unit — a key element in the more
serious desertion charges.

The case is also fraught with politics.

Some members of Congress and former members of Bergdahl's
unit criticized the Obama administration for trading someone they considered a
deserter for five top Taliban commanders held at the U.S.
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

If Bergdahl is severely punished, that trade could be called
into question again. On the other hand, some believe that five years in Taliban
captivity is punishment enough.

The original post: this story warrants a
review of the case thus far and comes from here:WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who disappeared from
his base in Afghanistan in 2009 but was released last year in a prisoner swap
with the Taliban, will be charged with desertion, according to NBC. The television network, citing senior defense
officials, said the charges could come within a week.

My thoughts on this
up to this point:

There are times when some start to think: the GOP-Rightwing
can’t sink any lower as they always surprise us (again) with their nadir as
they wallow in their own self-imposed muck. Nothing about the GOP-Right
seems to shock the conscience or incense the soul any longer. That list is very
long and for the history book. Examples:

Their blatant
hatred for Mr. Obama ever since January
20, 2009 when he took office.

Their anger
about his birth right and birth place and birth certificate.

Their
hatred for the ACA (Obama-care) as they apparently root for citizens not
to get good health care, especially in the sates that support the GOP the
most – a fact.

Their allegiance
and near total fealty to the NRA even after thousands die each year from
guns further saying “we are losing our rights and Obama for coming to get
our guns.”

Now the
release of and current status of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

It should have been, and was for a day or so, a moment of American
unity and joy. The release of a soldier held captive by the Taliban for 5 years
was great news. He was coming home for the price of exchanging five Taliban prisoners
from Gitmo. Then, true to form, the GOP-Right’s machine got a fresh supply of
gas and oil and the proverbial shit hit the fan.

That brief moment of unity have way to another GOP-Right opportunity
to mount another frontal assault against President Obama and then to Mr. Bergdahl
himself — and leading the pack and I truly mean pack is the entire FOX
so-called “news” network (that I call FAUX Nitwork).

Comments like: Bob
Bergdahl (Sgt. Bergdahl’s father) looks and talks like a Taliban and he even
learned Pashto. He is so un-American.”

Then we had the talk of desertion:

1. Sgt. Bergdahl is a deserter (although never charged but soon may be).
2. Hang him.
3. Skip his recovery, try him now.
4. Toss the UCMJ, bring on the lynch mob.
5. The Taliban should have kept him.
6. We should have let him rot in captivity.
7. Give him back we don’t want him here.
8. We are now dealing with terrorists and he is one.
9. Obama shows again how weak he us he's an enemy appeaser,
10. Impeach Obama now.

11. Damn the facts, full stream ahead and burn the bastard.
12. Bring the guilty bastard in, give
him a fair trial, and then hang him. I even heard someplace (can’t recall where): “Bergdahl should
be executed for desertion” and some even have said they hope “it will come to
pass in a Ted Cruz Administration.” (I still can’t stop laughing at that one).

This has been a sample of some of the more tepid comments
from the GOP-Rightwing at various levels and stages leading up to where
we now.

The unspoken rule of American politics, and especially since
9/11 and two major wars, plus the other military actions around the globe. has
been that the military is off-limits for criticism.

Naturally, the GOP-Right loves soldiers as long as they’re
dying silently, but they have not much use for them once they become Veterans
and start seeking services or new programs of assistance. But leave that aside.

Respecting and honoring the military has been the one truism
of American politics almost forever. If any soldier is held captive, bringing
him or her home alive has always been the sworn duty and code and incumbent
upon the Commander-in-Chief. In this case, the current CINC acted correctly.

However, if Bergdahl
is charged with any crime (e.g., desertion as now seems to be the case), so be
it. He has to face the music on that charge will hold him accountable.

The bottom line is simple: We got one of our own and that
was the right thing to do … let the facts and chips now, fall where they may,
after that fact.

Now a few facts to wrap this up at this point for now:

What is desertion? In military terminology, desertion is
the abandonment of a duty or post without permission (i.e., a pass, liberty or leave) and is done with the intention of not
returning.

In contrast, Unauthorized Absence (UA) or Absence
Without Leave (AWOL) refers to a temporary absence without permission or
approval (i.e., a pass or verbal).

According to the Pentagon, more than 5,500 military
personnel deserted in 2003–2004, following the Iraq
invasion and occupation. That number had reached about 8,000 by the first
quarter of 2006.

Another report stated that since 2000, about 40,000 troops
from all branches of the military have deserted, also according to the
Pentagon. More than half of these served in the US Army. Almost all of these
soldiers deserted within the United States.
There has only been one reported case of a desertion in Iraq.

The Army, Navy, and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in
2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in
desertion status in 2001. That had declined to 148 by 2005.

The punishment if found guilty of desertion – a historical
look:

Before the Civil War, deserters from the Army
were flogged. After 1861, tattoos or brands were used.